Hi! On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 05:13:01PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Using "AT&T UNIX/32V" would seem like an improvement to me because it > makes clear that "32V" is not a version number. > > Then again, i think printing "Version 7 AT&T UNIX/32V" might be even better > because some people may not know that 32v is just a port of v7, and it is > not that much longer. > > You might worry that the "32V" is easy to overlook in "Version 7 > AT&T UNIX/32V". But i would argue that manual pages need to be > read attentively in general. Small differences in wording are often > crucial, and if a hasty reader misses this particular detail, that's > unlikely to have dire consequences. I wouldn't strictly go so far as to say that Version 7 AT&T UNIX/32V is /better/, per se, since the important distinguishing factor is slightly short as compared to the rest of the string and common usage favours implying the Version 7, but then it /is/ at a, quite prominent, end, and is also correct. Either's perfectly fine by me. > The way to make this change is to open a feature request at > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=groff > unless somebody has already done that, post a message to > mentioning that ticket and briefly summarizing the rationale, > ideally also including the patch at the end to ease review. > Once that is pushed to the groff git, i will make sure mandoc follows. Great, thanks for the run-down! > Nab wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:54:47PM +0200: > > But the end-goal is to be correct, which I believe the current string > > is not, and I'm inclined to believe that it was a throwaway decision > I believe Cynthia Livingston did not usually make "throwaway decisions". I primarily meant "not giving much thought to something relatively inconsequential". Much like I thought my phrasing was. > > nobody remembers > Cynthia added it in this commit: > > s 00128/00026/00064 > d D 5.3 91/04/20 02:36:13 cael 5 3 > c register usage changes, reorg .St macro > > .\" Ns At macro - AT&T UNIX > .de At > .nr cF \\n(.f > .nr cZ \\n(.s > .ds aa \&\f\\n(cF\s\\n(cZ > .if \\n(.$==2 \{\ > . if "\\$1"32v" \&Version 32V \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa\\$2 > . if "\\$1"v6" \&Version 6 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa\\$2 > . if "\\$1"v7" \&Version 7 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa\\$2 > . if "\\$1"V" \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa\\$2 > . if "\\$1"V.1" \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V.1 \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa\\$2 > .\} > .if \\n(.$==1 \{\ > . if "\\$1"32v" \&Version 32V \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa > . if "\\$1"v6" \&Version 6 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa > . if "\\$1"v7" \&Version 7 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa > . if "\\$1"V" \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa > . if "\\$1"V.1" \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V.1 \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa > .\} > .. > > Did you ask her whether she remembers why she chose these particular > words? She is alive for all i know, and was well last time i > exchanged mail with her. Then again, maybe this is not really > important enough to bother her. I, uh, haven't, if only because I didn't know the SCCS histories were still available! I had been under the false impression that CSRG CD#3 was The CSRG CD. But, no, I don't believe this is important enough, or that, whatever the reasoning, the final answer to this will change. > If the wording can be improved, it can be changed. > > Yours, > Ingo Oh, and by the by: does your mutt config somehow latinise your mail, or? Best, наб